E.g. abortion rights, anti-LGBTQ, contempt for atheism, Christian nationalism, etc.

  • ChefTyler1980@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    143
    ·
    1 year ago

    I can only speak for my friends who fit your criteria: they’re single issue voters (like many Americans) and they’re afraid the Dems are coming for their guns.

    • Clent@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      92
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      The dilemma being that anyone who acts this way probably shouldn’t own guns.

      Placing gun ownership over all other personal freedoms is an unhealthy obsession.

      People who think they need weapons in case are not so different than those who think the rapture will occur in their lifetime.

      • Socsa@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s also a delusion for the most part. None of the scenarios they carve out in their minds about why guns are essential tools has much basis in any rational threat profile. Otherwise these nutters would be walking around with helmets on all the time.

      • redballooon@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Civilian disarmamends happened in various countries, i.e. Australia in 1996/97, UK after the Dunblane school massacre in 1996, Japan post WW2, South Africa in 2000, Colombia in 2000 and 2016, New Zealand after Christchurch.

        Strategies and success vary, but it’s not unheard of.

        • money_loo@1337lemmy.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Did you even read his comment?

          Australia did no such thing.

          Australia implemented significant gun control measures in response to a mass shooting in 1996. The Port Arthur massacre, where 35 people were killed and 23 wounded, prompted the government to take action. The key steps included:

          1. National Firearms Agreement (NFA): The Australian government, along with states and territories, agreed on a comprehensive set of gun control measures known as the National Firearms Agreement. This agreement aimed to standardize gun laws across the country.

          2. Buyback Program: A major component of the NFA was a nationwide gun buyback program. The government bought back and destroyed over 600,000 firearms, reducing the number of guns in circulation.

          3. Tightened Regulations: The NFA introduced stricter regulations on firearm ownership, including mandatory registration, background checks, and waiting periods. It also restricted the sale of certain types of firearms, such as semi-automatic rifles and shotguns.

          4. Licensing and Training: The licensing process for obtaining a firearm was made more rigorous, involving thorough background checks and a genuine reason for owning a firearm. Additionally, there was an emphasis on training for gun owners.

          5. Uniform Laws: Ensuring consistency in gun laws across different states and territories helped prevent loopholes and made it more challenging for individuals to circumvent regulations.

          As a result of these measures, Australia experienced a significant decline in gun-related deaths and mass shootings. The success of Australia’s gun control efforts is often cited in discussions about addressing gun violence in other countries.

          Australia did not simply “take the guns away” without compensation or throw anyone in jail for not turning them over. The gun control measures implemented in Australia, particularly after the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, included a buyback program. This program involved the government purchasing privately owned firearms from citizens, and it was a key component of the National Firearms Agreement (NFA).

          During the buyback, individuals were offered compensation for surrendering their firearms voluntarily. The government provided funds to compensate gun owners for the market value of the firearms that were handed in. This approach aimed to encourage compliance with the new regulations while respecting the property rights of gun owners.

          The buyback was a significant and intentional part of Australia’s strategy to reduce the number of firearms in circulation and enhance public safety through a combination of stricter regulations, uniform laws, and the removal of certain types of firearms from private ownership.

    • Tedesche@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      They are unfortunately correct. I can’t count how many failed attempts I’ve made to try to convince many of my liberal peers that trying to kill the 2nd Amendment or functionally prevent people from buying guns is doing more harm to our collective efforts than good by alienating independents who are otherwise liberal-leaning, but staunchly support 2A. Many liberals have terrible views about gun violence in general IMO, and a serious lack of comprehension of the problem. Conservatives aren’t much better, unfortunately, and they’re three times as stubborn, so here we are.

      • redballooon@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Many liberals have terrible views about gun violence in general IMO, and a serious lack of comprehension of the problem.

        Could you elaborate that a bit?

        • Tedesche@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          18
          arrow-down
          13
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Sure. For starters, they keep going on and on about mass shootings and how we need to cut access to guns to stop all the mass shootings.

          First of all, gun laws have been more or less the same for the past 100 years in the U.S., so how can they be the cause of the recent rise in mass shootings? Simple answer: they’re not. The rise in mass shootings is unfortunately an aspect of modern American culture and copycat-ism.

          Secondly, mass shootings make up a tiny fraction of gun violence; the fact that so many White liberals harp on mass shootings really just shows that they only really care about the gun violence that threatens to affect them and their kids. If they were serious about curbing gun violence, their focus wouldn’t be on mass shootings so much as smaller-scale gun crime.

          Third, many liberals are openly willing to kill a hobby that most gun owners enjoy without harming anyone, because they personally find said hobby unsightly and stupidly think they can stop gun violence in the U.S. by getting rid of gun stores—because that’s always put a stop to gun violence in other countries wherein it’s illegal to buy/sell guns (/s).

          I personally want to see many improvements to our gun laws in the U.S., such as more stringent background checks, laws against people with histories of serious psychiatric illness having access, laws against people with violent criminal histories having access, etc, but getting rid of all guns? No, total overkill, and such hardline, unreasonable stances are costing Democrats much-needed votes and ironically helping right-wing Nazis get closer to taking over the country. These views make no fucking sense when you scrutinize them and are clearly fueled by emotion rather than logic.

          • redballooon@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            First of all, gun laws have been more or less the same for the past 100 years in the U.S., so how can they be the cause of the recent rise in mass shootings? Simple answer: they’re not.

            So guns changed over the past 100 years, but the laws did not adjust. Sounds like a bad idea. How can a new technology a cause for a new problem? Did that ever happen???/s

            Semi-automatic rifles were not overly widespread before the 1990, and when they became, in 1994 there was a time-limited ban for semi-automatic firearms, which then expired in 2004. And what are the major concerns for mass shootings in recent years? It is semi-automatic firearms.

            If they were serious about curbing gun violence, their focus wouldn’t be on mass shootings so much as smaller-scale gun crime.

            Why do you think they want to ban all guns? But when you’ve a gun proponents such as in the US you gotta get real about what you can achieve. So it is not hypocrisy to focus on assault weaponry.

            That hobby thing can be said about many forbidden things, for example smoking cannabis.

          • FabioTheNewOrder@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            First of all, gun laws have been more or less the same for the past 100 years in the U.S., so how can they be the cause of the recent rise in mass shootings? Simple answer: they’re not.

            But they are, would your laws be stricter the appearance of these mass shootings would drop significantly since they perpetrators would have to go through a much mor rigorous screening process before being allowed near a firearm. The copycats and emulators are able to repeat these crimes ALSO because they have easy access to firearms, don’t act like this wouldn’t be a root cause for the mass shooting problem

            Secondly, mass shootings make up a tiny fraction of gun violence; the fact that so many White liberals harp on mass shootings really just shows that they only really care about the gun violence that threatens to affect them and their kids. If they were serious about curbing gun violence, their focus wouldn’t be on mass shootings so much as smaller-scale gun crime

            Those who commit small-scale gun crime use the same laws in place for mass-shooters and everybody else to access firearms used in their crimes

            Third, many liberals are openly willing to kill a hobby that most gun owners enjoy without harming anyone, because they personally find said hobby unsightly and stupidly think they can stop gun violence in the U.S. by getting rid of gun stores—because that’s always put a stop to gun violence in other countries wherein it’s illegal to buy/sell guns (/s).

            The Australian experience after the mass shooting in Port Arthur at the end of the 90ies tell a different story and it shows that guns buyback/confiscation can and will reduce crime committed by guns

            I personally want to see many improvements to our gun laws in the U.S., such as more stringent background checks, laws against people with histories of serious psychiatric illness having access, laws against people with violent criminal histories having access, etc, but getting rid of all guns? No, total overkill, and such hardline, unreasonable stances are costing Democrats much-needed votes and ironically helping right-wing Nazis get closer to taking over the country. These views make no fucking sense when you scrutinize them and are clearly fueled by emotion rather than logic.

            Tell that to the republicans, who see any intervention on the existing gun laws as an attack to the second amendment. More background checks? No thanks. Red flag laws? No thanks. Limiting firearms possession to those convicted of violent crimes? No thanks.

            Who is the party operating according to feeling and who is the one operating according to common sense and logic? Let me give you a hint, it’s not the blue one who is using scare tactics to keep everything as it is

          • mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Third, many liberals are openly willing to kill a hobby that most gun owners enjoy without harming anyone

            I honestly think a lot of the left’s stance on gun control stems from culture wars. Otherwise you wouldn’t see people reacting so much to pointless things like foregrips, suppressors, or painting guns black.

            laws against people with histories of serious psychiatric illness having access

            Tbf this is already a thing. If you’ve been involuntarily committed to a mental hospital (morning brain is preventing me from having the right term, sorry) that will show up on a federal background check.

            Also, interestingly this and red flag laws can have a negative consequence: it can lead to individuals trying to hide their symptoms and not seek treatment to avoid having their rights taken away, which merely exasperates the problem.

            I’m not opposed to having restrictions on gun ownership based on mental health, but there needs to be some way for affected individuals to gain their rights back after seeking treatment (similar to felons regaining their voting rights after a few years), in combination to making said treatment significantly easier to access (preferrably bia universal healthcare).

            • Tedesche@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              I work in mental health and I’m very sympathetic to what you’re talking about. I’d actually be opposed to any law that used a psychiatric hospitalization as a criteria alone for restricting gun rights. I said “serious mental illness,” because I meant things like schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, not major depression. And even within those diagnoses, people aren’t always a risk. It’s a delicate subject, but I think whatever solution, we need laws that (a) have an impact on gun misuse and (b) are flexible enough that they don’t trap people unnecessarily in the net.

          • phillaholic@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            You’re entitled to your opinion, but “mass shootings aren’t the worst gun violence in the US” is just a shitty argument especially when the US is the only country that it regularly happens. I’d rather there be no gun violence anywhere, but I definitely care more about kids getting slaughtered than I do criminals shooting at each other. I don’t think that’s unreasonable at all.

            I’ll also add something that’s changed is the radicalization of the likes of the NRA and right-wing groups starting in the 80s. When my father joined the NRA it was an organization that pushed for safety and training of firearms. Now they a practically a political arm of the Republican Party who just fear-monger and drive people to hoard guns and ammo, which I’m sure make the manufacturers happy. A large number of mass shooters have listened to these radicalized propaganda machines.

            If we want to have a conversation about preventing the radicalization in the first place, I’m for it. Hold those people responsible instead of all fun owners is a topic to discuss.

          • havokdj@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            There is one huge change in gun laws that has occurred in the last 100 years

            1986

      • phillaholic@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        If the claim here is that these people would vote straight Blue if the Democratic Party came out tomorrow supporting guns I don’t buy it at all. They’ll move the goalposts. Half the rhetoric they believe about Democrats taking their guns is entirely fabricated to begin with, a large chunk of the rest amounts to paperwork.

      • TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.id
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        And yet, things like universal background checks and red flag laws poll at something like 80 percent support nationally. Most people are perfectly OK with changing the status quo on gun ownership. The problem is that there is a very determined and highly vocal minority that immediately leaps to “they’re coming for our guns!” any time any kind of widely-supoorted common sense gun control measures are even mentioned. The result is that we can’t even have a conversation about what said measures should look like so everyone continues to cling to their absolutist positions in ignorance and fear. This is by design and we are suckers for allowing ourselves to be played like this. It’s pure manipulation on the part of political opportunists.

      • mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        My personal stance is is a combination of an observation that an armed population is harder to oppress, and that gun control tends to have a disproportionate impact on minorities and oppressed groups.

        Since LGBT and minorities are the most likely groups to be attacked by political opposition, we shouldn’t be trying to hamstring their ability to defend themselves.

        Plus, a contributing factor to why the alt-right and fascists have gained so much ground in the past decade is because of the perception that only the political right has guns, and therefore they think that they’ll win in a fight

      • Guy_Fieris_Hair@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Mental health is the issue. Just like anyone who would drive a car through a school yard mowing down kids, that person has mental issues. The vehicles driver should be licensed and the owner should be registered. I am a gun toting liberal in a state with essential zero gun laws. I believe in the second ammendment, but not absolute. You should be able to have a gun, but you should be licensed (psyc eval, background check, gun safety classes requirement) and your guns should be registered. If a gun you own ever kills someone, you are responsible. Your gun is your responsibility to keep locked up and if it’s stolen you should have reported it.

        • Tedesche@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Just like anyone who would drive a car through a school yard mowing down kids, that person has mental issues.

          No, mental health issues are specific and do not encompass simply “being fucked up.” You can be plenty fucked up and not be mentally ill, and most of the people who get violent in the way you’re describing are simply extremists, not people suffering from a psychological disorder.

        • mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          You should be able to have a gun, but you should be licensed

          The issue here is that gun ownership is a right, while driving is a privilege. Privileges can require licenses, but if you require a license to exercise a right then it’s no longer a right.

          Requiring every gun owner to have a license would have to be done as a constitutional amendment, and invalidating part of the Bill of Rights is unprecedented

          • Guy_Fieris_Hair@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Then owning a gun in a civilized country with no legitimate threat from outside forces to it’s individual civilians and a military that has higher funding than the next 10 countries combined should not be a right in the 21st century. It should however be a privilege that you have the most basic of accountability for.

    • littlecolt@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      That was monetary issues. The “temporarily embarrassed millionaires” out there who want to keep R in power so when they finally get rich, they won’t have to pay taxes.

    • Fades@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      single issue voters are fucking willfully braindead. Selfish short-sighted fuckers doing the opposite of their civic duty

    • legios@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      In Australia I know a lot of people who vote purely based on how their parents voted. That includes people voting against their own interests and refuse to do any research that might change their minds…